Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Jonathan on August 11, 2019, 05:17:16 pm
-
This isn’t intended to be a moan or to transcend into chaos and bickering in the way many threads seem to at the moment. Our transfer activity is clearly polarising opinion at the moment and I just thought it was interesting to look at it in the context of the squad that we currently have in place, and to what extent that will impact on our future planning. Hopefully there’s a sensible debate to be had somewhere.
With the news emerging that we’re looking at addressing the striker situation with another loan, it got me thinking where we are at in terms of players tied down to the club beyond the current campaign. By my reckoning this is the extent of it:
Ian Lawlor
Bradley Halliday
Reece James
Joe Wright
Ben Whiteman
Madger Gomes
Jon Taylor
Everybody else is either on loan or out of contract at the end of the current season. That is a very small core of players to plan and build around. Some will argue, and perhaps with logic, that this is a great position to be in as it will give our new manager freedom to develop and build his own team. But there’s quite a task on at the moment and a few priorities that will require consideration in the near future:
Tom Anderson will be free to talk to other clubs from January, likewise Kieran Sadlier. I would expect that extending their contracts ought to be high on the list of things to do as they are both big assets to the first team (and with future resale value). There’ll also need to be consideration over Ben Whiteman’s contractual situation in order to protect the investment we made in our biggest asset.
It’ll be interesting to see the direction that Darren Moore and Gavin Baldwin want to take us in. For me this illustrates why the club does need to think about investing in a bigger core of players that we’d like to develop with us, so that we can try to achieve a bit more stability. This summer has been a turbulent one for a number of reasons and I’m sure everyone at the club will want to avoid any repeat of that in future years. So there’s some real thought that needs to go into how we want to position our team and squad and ‘future proof’ the club.
Are we content to be a club that will need to build a new team each season? In which case you can see why the reliance on the loan market would continue to a primary way of resolving weaknesses in the team. Or do we want to build something more stable and progressive? Maybe we’ll have more of an idea in a few weeks’ time.
-
I think after a few months DM will know which of the players like Anderson and Sadlier etc he believes we should extend..
I am sure this will be reviewed by the club and we will aim to tie down long term the players we want to keep both for performances and for future values..
-
Cost of wages for players is more attendances and ticket prices havent. Barnsley can do it their way as they get 14k in we get 7k
-
Cost of wages for players is more attendances and ticket prices havent. Barnsley can do it their way as they get 14k in we get 7k
They've also received millions more in transfer fees, by applying some forward planning on which players they bring in.
-
The two year contract as default is very odd, you have to admit. It does suggest you don’t really have faith in your choices. Understandable for Copps and maybe Baptiste to be in short deals, but players like Taylor? Perhaps some of them will only join on shorter deals as they are confident they can do well and pocket the windfall in two years when their deals wind down? Who knows. It does leave us open to reinvention each summer though.
-
I agree that it would be better to give our better players three year deals, but it isn't always that simple. Personally I think the club got scared off of that method when Fergie handed out long deals to players who ended up being rubbish, I believe it was Evina, Lund and Middleton. Maybe Mandeville too.
-
Taylor is 2 but with an option of a 3rd so if he does well this season I would guess we will take the option up
-
Taylor deal is 3 years really, only won’t be if both parties don’t want it
-
If he wants to stay and he is decent then he will get a new deal at the end of two years anyway. The 2+1 is BS if the lad wants to leave to go to another club for free after two seasons with us. It offers us no protection at all.
-
Depends on the wording of the clause though, doesn't it.
-
Tom Anderson needs renewing sharpish
-
Usually if one party wants to renew then it renews. James wanted to renew at Sunderland even though they didn’t want to so he got the extra year
-
Taylor is two years with the option of a third, so he’s now tied down for longer than anyone else at the club.
The other six players contracted beyond this season all expire the following year. Whiteman in particular will pose a decision on whether to extend or sell.
The remaining players will all leave at the end of this season unless new contracts are agreed in the mean time. It’s a big task already if we are to avoid another significant rebuild.
Longer term contracts do come with a risk. It’s clearly been a wise investment in Ben Whiteman, much less so in the likes of Alex Kiwomya so you can see why there’s some trepidation.
Either way, there is a lot to think about with only seven players contracted to be here beyond this season.
-
Very good OP.
Another thing that I don’t quite understand is the 1 year rolling contract for DM. It hardly screams stability does it.
I can’t see any positives for the club other than it would cost nothing to change managers if things don’t go to plan.
-
GM is on a one year rolling contract at Hull
-
Very good OP.
Another thing that I don’t quite understand is the 1 year rolling contract for DM. It hardly screams stability does it.
I can’t see any positives for the club other than it would cost nothing to change managers if things don’t go to plan.
Wouldn’t it cost a years wages.?
-
Very good OP.
Another thing that I don’t quite understand is the 1 year rolling contract for DM. It hardly screams stability does it.
I can’t see any positives for the club other than it would cost nothing to change managers if things don’t go to plan.
Why? every single day he has a year left on his contract. Of course it will cost.
-
Possibly? I assumed there would be a decision/agreement made by both parties at the end of each season
-
Very good OP.
Another thing that I don’t quite understand is the 1 year rolling contract for DM. It hardly screams stability does it.
I can’t see any positives for the club other than it would cost nothing to change managers if things don’t go to plan.
A one year rolling contract means that the manager always has a year of his deal in front of him.
If the club wanted to sack him they would have to pay him twelve months worth of salary.
-
Possibly? I assumed there would be a decision/agreement made by both parties at the end of each season
Why the end of the season? He can resign whenever he wants and he can be given notice whenever we want but we'd still have to pay him if we wanted rid.
-
Very good OP.
Another thing that I don’t quite understand is the 1 year rolling contract for DM. It hardly screams stability does it.
I can’t see any positives for the club other than it would cost nothing to change managers if things don’t go to plan.
Why? every single day he has a year left on his contract. Of course it will cost.
Ok that clears that up then, cheers.
-
Taylor is 2 but with an option of a 3rd so if he does well this season I would guess we will take the option up
No it means Taylor wanted 3 and we gave 2 + 1 = 3
-
Maybe I’m naive, but I feel that in Darren Moore we have a manager with more integrity than McCann was ultimately found to have. I believe he’s committed to the project here and we shouldn’t worry about him walking out in a year.
What I’m unsure of is how we are positioned to deliver a medium / long term project given the situation with the contracts of the playing staff, and the apparent continuing focus on short term fixes.
Reading some of the other threads I feel there’s a misconception that people are childish for questioning the plans to use loan signings or short term contracts - as if people just want to see money spent recklessly to satisfy their demands. Maybe that is the case with some, but it’s not the case with all. I’ve tried to make the case factually - I am concerned that we would pursue a loan signing to replace Marquis as we already have a big task on ahead of next summer without kicking another can down the road.
The Barnsley model is reliant on players coming into the club and developing within the structure. We’re not positioned for that in any way at the moment. Maybe we are content to build a new team each year?
-
Taylor is 2 but with an option of a 3rd so if he does well this season I would guess we will take the option up
No it means Taylor wanted 3 and we gave 2 + 1 = 3
Does it.? Is that factually true or just your opinion.?
-
......................................
Reading between the lines .
........................................
-
Never mind.. let’s leave it as this thread isn’t about arguments.
-
Cost of wages for players is more attendances and ticket prices havent. Barnsley can do it their way as they get 14k in we get 7k
They've also received millions more in transfer fees, by applying some forward planning on which players they bring in.
Or looking at it another way they have been very lucky, players have kicked on whilst at Barnsley enabling the good deals some have not we don't hear a lot about them
-
Maybe use the Marquis money to tie down contracts for Anderson and Sadlier and offer Whiteman a new contract. Might as well use it for that if we're struggling to use it to buy players.
-
The clubs strategy is clearly to only worry about the short term, with zero long term planning.
The hierarchy must be happy with the model to rebuild with short term signings and loans every pre-season.
-
None of us know what the problems are, but one thing is for sure, the longer we leave strengthening the side, the more we’re increasing our chances of not having a successful season. Surely, everyone can see that.
Personally, I think we would have had a striker in now, but for the wages problem. Signing Championship strikers on L1 wages is simply not going to happen. Either we drop lucky and someone has a change of heart, or we have to get a loan, or we plumb the depths of L2.
Whatever we do, we should get on and do it.
-
We need to use Marquis's money for another striker alongside Sadlier if we are to drive up the table. Using it for existing players right now won't get us near a playoff spot by Christmas. Fleetwood will show us how good we currently really are.
-
I don't agree that the club is being short term minded, they have stated that the championship is a goal and players where available and good enough are signed for 2-3 years. Players contracts will never all run concurrently so there will be always players contracts with different expiry dates.
-
None of us know what the problems are, but one thing is for sure, the longer we leave strengthening the side, the more we’re increasing our chances of not having a successful season. Surely, everyone can see that.
Personally, I think we would have had a striker in now, but for the wages problem. Signing Championship strikers on L1 wages is simply not going to happen. Either we drop lucky and someone has a change of heart, or we have to get a loan, or we plumb the depths of L2.
Whatever we do, we should get on and do it.
What I think also (at the same time). We need to get on with it as we are already in the season and dropping points we might need at the end.
-
I understand how the manager change has held things up and means we'll maybe have to take a few short term decisions to be competitive where we want to be in the table. Shame it was the same last season too which just compounds it this year. Important we start looking at players contracts in good time before a transfer window so they are always secured by a few years.
Think the long term plans, contracts, transfers etc should be looked after by another person who see's the off the field plan through so changes in manager (which lets face it are now a regular event) don't cause so much upheaval.
-
I don't agree that the club is being short term minded, they have stated that the championship is a goal and players where available and good enough are signed for 2-3 years. Players contracts will never all run concurrently so there will be always players contracts with different expiry dates.
They can say the Championship is their goal all they want. Where is the evidence to show that?
There is a reason players are continuously turning the contracts we offer down.
-
I suppose it comes down to conservative growth which is what you would expect, or I would anyway from club owners that understand how to develop and grow businesses without going broke. Some will disagree and you do which is fine but if we go down the track (or if we had a choice) of pouring money into a raft of new players and we still don't move onwards and upwards, what then? pour more money in, the owners themselves have responsibilities to maintain their own businesses and employees and ensure longevity.
-
I don't agree that the club is being short term minded, they have stated that the championship is a goal and players where available and good enough are signed for 2-3 years. Players contracts will never all run concurrently so there will be always players contracts with different expiry dates.
They can say the Championship is their goal all they want. Where is the evidence to show that?
There is a reason players are continuously turning the contracts we offer down.
Yes and that’s why GM left he realised that he couldn’t get the players he wanted to make us stronger. So soon as a Championship club offered him a job he quickly jumped ship. It’s alright having offers in but if you can’t pay the wages then loan players is the way. DM is realising that now.
GB on behalf of the club stated promotion he set expectations. We put bids in for two players which were accepted yet we couldn’t agree terms nor even for one. So if we want to be conservative then don’t keep talking about promotion the manager hasn’t because he knows his squad.
-
Planning ahead is certainly not spending all our money on one player.
Once DM's squad is complete by 2 Sept, then he can evaluate things up to January including extending contracts or not as each player merits. Also needs to manage players out as well as in.
This could be a consolidation season but could be one where he lays the foundations to kick on.
He's only been in post a few weeks so give him chance!
-
Planning ahead is certainly not spending all our money on one player.
Once DM's squad is complete by 2 Sept, then he can evaluate things up to January including extending contracts or not as each player merits. Also needs to manage players out as well as in.
This could be a consolidation season but could be one where he lays the foundations to kick on.
He's only been in post a few weeks so give him chance!
Baz if that’s the case on consolidation then say it not ramp up expectations that they can’t achieve because we can’t pay the wages required.
-
We either get a striker in (preferably before Saturday) or I’ll start to wonder if DM’s ‘little black book’ was in fact his bible.
We don’t & can’t afford to be paying players weekly wages in the ‘5 figure’ bracket, which means attracting an experienced forward from the Championship is a no no.
DM must have known this, or at least should have been made aware of it & the ‘situation’ regarding Marquis, who despite those who feel rightly or wrongly Marquis served the club ‘a curve ball’ in signing for Portsmouth’, the board should have ‘factored in’ he was leaving & have contingencies in place to address his departure which given the length of time taken to conduct the interviews for the manager position, must surely have been explained to those who made the shortlist (otherwise they’d be guilty at least of offering the position whilst tying the new mans hand behind his back) so given all of that, where & how did DM & the ‘powers at be’ think it sensible to allow statements like “we’ve identified & are in talks with player/s who’s scoring records are as good as John Marquises”?
It makes supporters feel confused & frustrated & even more disappointing, in fact embarrassing, makes DM, GB & the owners look foolish.
I sincerely hope there is an announcement made this week regarding the acquisition of a ‘recognisably’ talented centre forward that makes me the one looking foolish.
-
Agree with that Colin. Think the club have partly brought this on themselves by not managing expectations. Saying the aim is promotion, money is available, players are lined up, bids accepted etc etc, obviously people are going to feel disappointed when it looks like the reality is turning out to be different to what was stated.
-
When you take in that DM has only been with the club a little over 4 weeks I think you have to give him a bit of slack and time to do what he's being paid to do. If buying players was as simple as shopping at Tesco then we would be right to start asking questions but it's clearly not so maybe talk to those here that have hired people and ask them how easy it is then you would get more of an understanding of the difficulties involved.
-
I don't agree that the club is being short term minded, they have stated that the championship is a goal and players where available and good enough are signed for 2-3 years. Players contracts will never all run concurrently so there will be always players contracts with different expiry dates.
They can say the Championship is their goal all they want. Where is the evidence to show that?
There is a reason players are continuously turning the contracts we offer down.
Yes and that’s why GM left he realised that he couldn’t get the players he wanted to make us stronger. So soon as a Championship club offered him a job he quickly jumped ship. It’s alright having offers in but if you can’t pay the wages then loan players is the way. DM is realising that now.
GB on behalf of the club stated promotion he set expectations. We put bids in for two players which were accepted yet we couldn’t agree terms nor even for one. So if we want to be conservative then don’t keep talking about promotion the manager hasn’t because he knows his squad.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
You shouldn't turn assumptions into facts. That's not why GM left, he was happy at the club, but a chance to work at a Championship club and pick up a larger salary for himself was the reason he left. It had nothing to do with not signing the players he wanted, nothing at all.
Where has it become a fact that we can't pay the wages that players want? Where is it fact that we've agreed bids for two players but can't agree terms?
-
Martin it was said by DM we’d agreed bids yet the players are not here and deals have dropped through. We are now looking at a loan player. Is that not true or a fact either.
He was that happy with the club that his final gesture was to sign Gomes on a two year deal and not come out in the media to say how good he was that was strange for Grant.
-
Where is it said, apart from on the forum etc, that those potential deals are dead.?
-
Ok they are still alive!! Yet we are only looking at one striker now who is a loan player said by DM. It that not true either.
-
Martin it was said by DM we’d agreed bids yet the players are not here and deals have dropped through. We are now looking at a loan player. Is that not true or a fact either.
We've had no bids rejected, none at all.
DM has a striker in mind, someone he's been after for ages. He's been determined to bring this one to the club.
So, in short, your assumptions are wrong.
-
Ok they are still alive!! Yet we are only looking at one striker now who is a loan player said by DM. It that not true either.
As far as I could see the DFP says this is a priority, but not necessarily the last signing.
-
So the two players that we bid for and accepted according to DM what’s happened to those players. If the one he is after is a loan and his parent club are deciding if he can come.
-
Back on topic, and addressing a point made earlier that ”planning ahead is certainly not spending all our money on one player”, surely nobody is suggesting that it is?! To do so would be reckless and foolish. But loans and short term contracts do little to address future planning requirements either, other than to kick the can down the road to a stage where the issues pile up further.
I do understand that the best case scenario is that we loan a player of such quality that we’d have no chance of buying him. And if he helps us to get promoted then he’s done his job and we go into the summer needing to build a new team capable of delivering at a higher level than this one. There’d be some merit in that, but there are a lot of ifs in that scenario.
My view is that the club would benefit from having a larger core group of players that will grow with us beyond this season. There’ll always be comings and goings within and outside that core group, but at least the club’s interests are protected where potential sales are concerned.
Having only seven players (currently) to be able to look at from one season to the next is not enough. And loan signings and short term contracts add to the risk rather than taking away from it, as funds that could otherwise be spent on developing the squad are used to plug gaps.
We had a similar discussion last season about the number of contracted players, and we’ve seen almost an entire team change as a result. We finished last season on such a high at Charlton. Nobody could have foreseen the managerial situation, and I feel we’ve emerged well from that by appointing Darren Moore. But the risks around continuity in the playing staff were foreseen, and rather than building on last season’s success we’re almost starting again.
-
It’s a balancing act though.? Longer term contracts can be a problem if the players don’t deliver and are hard to move on.?
-
So the two players that we bid for and accepted according to DM what’s happened to those players. If the one he is after is a loan and his parent club are deciding if he can come.
I'm not sure what you're quoting there.
But he's probably referring to the two deals we had in place that were set up by GM, one was Sheaf and the other was Middleton. DM sanctioned the Sheaf deal but was cautious over the Middleton one, and in the end signed Taylor as a permanent signing rather another loan.
But I repeat, we've had no bids rejected, no deals have fallen through due to wages, which means your starting premise is all wrong.
-
I think the “2 bids” thing is for the two players DM was referring to around the time of the Gillingham game.?
-
So the two players that we bid for and accepted according to DM what’s happened to those players. If the one he is after is a loan and his parent club are deciding if he can come.
I'm not sure what you're quoting there.
But he's probably referring to the two deals we had in place that were set up by GM, one was Sheaf and the other was Middleton. DM sanctioned the Sheaf deal but was cautious over the Middleton one, and in the end signed Taylor as a permanent signing rather another loan.
But I repeat, we've had no bids rejected, no deals have fallen through due to wages, which means your starting premise is all wrong.
What??
On the day Marquis left, Liam Hoden published a story that we had made bids for two strikers, both of which had been accepted.Both who had just as good or if not better records than Marquis. Are you saying this isn't true?
-
There's an awful lot of people stating their opinion, or some speculation, as a fact and then just referring to it as solid truth thereafter. A very strange world we live in now where this is the norm.
-
Phttps://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers/doncaster-rovers-darren-moore-details-striker-hunt-as-he-targets-replacements-for-john-marquis-487781
Is this true or not
-
SM not yet picking up on the specific point doesn’t mean the DFP report was wrong - give him time to reply.?
-
Jonathan,
Things are never that simple. You can't put everybody on long term contracts, you have to have some on short term so that they can be let go if they don't meet certain standards or injuries take their toll. But at the same time you need your better players signed up for longer which is what the club have done.
If GM had stayed then most of those deals would have been sorted out, but the break in appointing a new manager has delayed things slightly. However be assured, putting the deals in place for the players you mention has been done, or is being done as we speak.
-
I need to do my day job now, so I'll respond later.
-
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers/doncaster-rovers-darren-moore-details-striker-hunt-as-he-targets-replacements-for-john-marquis-487781
I think this is what people are referring too SM not the deals in place prior to GM leaving.Here DM talks about bids in place for 2 strikers and trying to get them over the line..
-
Léon Clarke situation is typical of today’s football world .He is under contract to Blades who did not wish him to leave till they brought another forward in .For him to leave now it will forcibly be a loan since the wondow is closed .Maybe we have the same position at Luton with Hylton .
As for long term planning ..GM effed all plans up by letting good players go then moving on himself .It will be impossible to build a stronger squad than we finished the season with and DM will no doubt do what he is proven at .Develop the U 23 squad as THE future plan.That is the only way to avoid having to start afresh every season .
-
Loans will never be the full solution because of the limit we can have in the squad so the amount of short term-ism is limited. Plus now when we sign a player under 30 the contract length appears to be 3 years more often than not.
As i said before our planning is 100% reliant on the managers views at the moment but if we could take a lot of that side away from them so they focus on coaching/tactics we'd be able to line things up quicker. Depends how you like the club run i wouldn't mind that way so long as the manager has a veto and strong input, they should still be most important person at the club.
-
As for Grant,i didn't hear this myself but a Hull friend of mind says that he gave a radio interview with Humberside on Saturday prior to the game, were he claims that he actually had a deal in place to actually purchase Malik Wilks last season but couldn't get it sanctioned by the board..
Cant see that been true but the more he speaks the less respect I have for him now...
-
Léon Clarke situation is typical of today’s football world .He is under contract to Blades who did not wish him to leave till they brought another forward in .For him to leave now it will forcibly be a loan since the wondow is closed .Maybe we have the same position at Luton with Hylton .
As for long term planning ..GM effed all plans up by letting good players go then moving on himself .It will be impossible to build a stronger squad than we finished the season with and DM will no doubt do what he is proven at .Develop the U 23 squad as THE future plan.That is the only way to avoid having to start afresh every season .
Haven't they all named their 25 man squad that can't be changed so if they sign a replacement for Clarke he won't be able to play anyway? not sure how fixed the squad is once named. And we can still sign him permanently
-
As for Grant,i didn't hear this myself but a Hull friend of mind says that he gave a radio interview with Humberside on Saturday prior to the game, were he claims that he actually had a deal in place to actually purchase Malik Wilks last season but couldn't get it sanctioned by the board..
Cant see that been true but the more he speaks the less respect I have for him now...
And if it is true?
-
As for Grant,i didn't hear this myself but a Hull friend of mind says that he gave a radio interview with Humberside on Saturday prior to the game, were he claims that he actually had a deal in place to actually purchase Malik Wilks last season but couldn't get it sanctioned by the board..
Cant see that been true but the more he speaks the less respect I have for him now...
And if it is true?
Then going on what Barnsley have just shelled out for him, then we royally dropped a big clanger because I'm sure it wouldn't have been that amount...But surely it isn't true???
-
As for Grant,i didn't hear this myself but a Hull friend of mind says that he gave a radio interview with Humberside on Saturday prior to the game, were he claims that he actually had a deal in place to actually purchase Malik Wilks last season but couldn't get it sanctioned by the board..
Cant see that been true but the more he speaks the less respect I have for him now...
And if it is true?
Then going on what Barnsley have just shelled out for him, then we royally dropped a big clanger because I'm sure it wouldn't have been that amount...But surely it isn't true???
I guess only Mccann and the board know for sure,
-
Just a thought based upon speculation only - maybe we would have only moved for Wilks on a permanent deal had we achieved promotion.?
There’s always more to a story than what a manager/player lets on in a press interview after joining a new club..
-
Léon Clarke situation is typical of today’s football world .He is under contract to Blades who did not wish him to leave till they brought another forward in .For him to leave now it will forcibly be a loan since the wondow is closed .Maybe we have the same position at Luton with Hylton .
As for long term planning ..GM effed all plans up by letting good players go then moving on himself .It will be impossible to build a stronger squad than we finished the season with and DM will no doubt do what he is proven at .Develop the U 23 squad as THE future plan.That is the only way to avoid having to start afresh every season .
Haven't they all named their 25 man squad that can't be changed so if they sign a replacement for Clarke he won't be able to play anyway? not sure how fixed the squad is once named. And we can still sign him permanently
They’ve got while 2ndSept to name 25 squad at present Sheffield U have named 23 but still have players not in the 25 which Clarke is one. They can still sign free agents until then also. Once the 25 has been finalised then it’s very difficult.
-
Following with interest now to learn from SM if the Free Press made up the story that DM had bids accepted for 2 strikers. If they did that paints a different picture to what everyone on here seems to be worried about.
-
Following with interest now to learn from SM if the Free Press made up the story that DM had bids accepted for 2 strikers. If they did that paints a different picture to what everyone on here seems to be worried about.
The Free Press didn’t make it up, it’s lifted from the interview DM gave to BBC Radio Sheffield on the Thursday before the season kicked off. He said that fees had been agreed with the clubs but there were still details to be sorted to get the deals over the line. When pushed by the interviewer (Andy Giddings I think) it was said to be terms and medicals still to be resolved. DM was typically coy, but that was the inference from it and there was a clear reference to these players being goalscorers with pedigree and records as good if not better than John Marquis.
I think it’ll still be on the Football Heaven website to listen to.
-
He said bids were accepted but we were just waiting on final details, I assume bonuses contract length etc now these may still be being done player wants 2 year we want 3 or vice versa. He may want a million if we go up or scores 20 goals we may only want to pay 300k this is all ifs and buts at the minute.
Looks like we have to wait as SM says DM really wants this player in so I’m sure he and the board are doing everything they can but at the same time are not going to upset the balance of the club and team for one man.
-
It seems we're in negotiation with someone ... and hes placing incredible demands on the club. The guy better justify it, whoever he is.
-
It seems we're in negotiation with someone ... and hes placing incredible demands on the club. The guy better justify it, whoever he is.
Given his comments on it potentially being quick, perhaps it's a case of mostly agreed but waiting for the player to be fit, or club to agree etc etc, lots of reasons it could be.
I guess Moore has to question how long he can wait?
-
We either get a striker in (preferably before Saturday) or I’ll start to wonder if DM’s ‘little black book’ was in fact his bible.
We don’t & can’t afford to be paying players weekly wages in the ‘5 figure’ bracket, which means attracting an experienced forward from the Championship is a no no.
DM must have known this, or at least should have been made aware of it & the ‘situation’ regarding Marquis, who despite those who feel rightly or wrongly Marquis served the club ‘a curve ball’ in signing for Portsmouth’, the board should have ‘factored in’ he was leaving & have contingencies in place to address his departure which given the length of time taken to conduct the interviews for the manager position, must surely have been explained to those who made the shortlist (otherwise they’d be guilty at least of offering the position whilst tying the new mans hand behind his back) so given all of that, where & how did DM & the ‘powers at be’ think it sensible to allow statements like “we’ve identified & are in talks with player/s who’s scoring records are as good as John Marquises”?
It makes supporters feel confused & frustrated & even more disappointing, in fact embarrassing, makes DM, GB & the owners look foolish.
I sincerely hope there is an announcement made this week regarding the acquisition of a ‘recognisably’ talented centre forward that makes me the one looking foolish.
I hear ya, but
One man’s recognisably talented striker is another man’s donkey,
I’m not even sure what is required, a target man, a young athletic development type, an older experienced one....
Whoever we get will be Marmite to some...
-
We either get a striker in (preferably before Saturday) or I’ll start to wonder if DM’s ‘little black book’ was in fact his bible.
We don’t & can’t afford to be paying players weekly wages in the ‘5 figure’ bracket, which means attracting an experienced forward from the Championship is a no no.
DM must have known this, or at least should have been made aware of it & the ‘situation’ regarding Marquis, who despite those who feel rightly or wrongly Marquis served the club ‘a curve ball’ in signing for Portsmouth’, the board should have ‘factored in’ he was leaving & have contingencies in place to address his departure which given the length of time taken to conduct the interviews for the manager position, must surely have been explained to those who made the shortlist (otherwise they’d be guilty at least of offering the position whilst tying the new mans hand behind his back) so given all of that, where & how did DM & the ‘powers at be’ think it sensible to allow statements like “we’ve identified & are in talks with player/s who’s scoring records are as good as John Marquises”?
It makes supporters feel confused & frustrated & even more disappointing, in fact embarrassing, makes DM, GB & the owners look foolish.
I sincerely hope there is an announcement made this week regarding the acquisition of a ‘recognisably’ talented centre forward that makes me the one looking foolish.
I hear ya, but
One man’s recognisably talented striker is another man’s donkey,
I’m not even sure what is required, a target man, a young athletic development type, an older experienced one....
Whoever we get will be Marmite to some...
I agree, it doesn't really matter who signs...................... they'll still get abuse on here
-
All seems a bit odd, Moore staying he had two bids for players that were accepted and we just needed to get it over the line with the players terms and medicals.
Hoden stating Taylor was one of those even though he was a free transfer so we wouldn’t have paid any fee.
And now SM saying he doesn’t think we had bid for these two players in the first place?
-
This is turning into a complete and utter joke.
-
All seems a bit odd, Moore staying he had two bids for players that were accepted and we just needed to get it over the line with the players terms and medicals.
Hoden stating Taylor was one of those even though he was a free transfer so we wouldn’t have paid any fee.
And now SM saying he doesn’t think we had bid for these two players in the first place?
No mate, SM said we didn’t have any bids rejected and no deals have failed due to wage demands.
It is strange though that the deals haven’t been completed if terms between the clubs have been agreed.
I also don’t believe that Hoden is correct in his assumption that Taylor was one of the strikers that was targeted as his record is in no way comparable to that of Marquis.
-
So the two players that we bid for and accepted according to DM what’s happened to those players. If the one he is after is a loan and his parent club are deciding if he can come.
I'm not sure what you're quoting there.
But he's probably referring to the two deals we had in place that were set up by GM, one was Sheaf and the other was Middleton. DM sanctioned the Sheaf deal but was cautious over the Middleton one, and in the end signed Taylor as a permanent signing rather another loan.
But I repeat, we've had no bids rejected, no deals have fallen through due to wages, which means your starting premise is all wrong.
I was referring to this, where sm thought the two bids that were being spoken about were the Middleton one rather than the ones just before the Gillingham game
-
Taylor isn't a striker and wasn't at a club so he cannot have been one of the two strikers Moore referred to. Hoden has either misunderstood or just put the information out incorrectly.
-
Taylor isn't a striker and wasn't at a club so he cannot have been one of the two strikers Moore referred to. Hoden has either misunderstood or just put the information out incorrectly.
The interview is on the Football Heaven website in full audio. Liam Hoden hasn’t misconstrued what was said. What was said was reported.
-
Talking of planning a head if Herbie is going to a league 1 club on loan then put in a bid and sign him from Liverpool he will triple in price at least if he leads us to promotion
-
Talking of planning a head if Herbie is going to a league 1 club on loan then put in a bid and sign him from Liverpool he will triple in price at least if he leads us to promotion
With the best will in the world Steve, if Kane accepts a permanent deal at any League One club, he'd need to shoot his agent.
-
Talking of planning a head if Herbie is going to a league 1 club on loan then put in a bid and sign him from Liverpool he will triple in price at least if he leads us to promotion
With the best will in the world Steve, if Kane accepts a permanent deal at any League One club, he'd need to shoot his agent.
I appreciate that
-
Surely The club are looking at getting players in as quickly as possible if we haven’t put bids in why ??? Selling your best striker and no replacement I can’t think how that would help the team.
If we have money to spend why are we not making moves in the transfer market or are we aiming to high for players who we have no chance of getting and need to look closer to the actual league we are in.
-
We’ve put two bids in for strikers, both bids were accepted but this was two weeks ago now
-
We’ve put two bids in for strikers, both bids were accepted but this was two weeks ago now
I notice Liam Hoden, or any journo hasn't asked DM the question directly about these two bids. They just ask general questions about new players.
These deals are dead in the water.
-
We’ve put two bids in for strikers, both bids were accepted but this was two weeks ago now
Exactly, talk is cheap, theres no point putting bids in if theres no chance they’ll come, may as well put bids in for Ronaldo and Messi, the bids would be in but they’ll never come